lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 0/4] Introducing a queue read/write lock implementation
On 01/31/2014 04:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> The below is still small and actually works.
> OK, so having actually worked through the thing; I realized we can
> actually do a version without MCS lock and instead use a ticket lock for
> the waitqueue.
>
> This is both smaller (back to 8 bytes for the rwlock_t), and should be
> faster under moderate contention for not having to touch extra
> cachelines.
>
> Completely untested and with a rather crude generic ticket lock
> implementation to illustrate the concept:
>

Using a ticket lock instead will have the same scalability problem as
the ticket spinlock as all the waiting threads will spin on the lock
cacheline causing a lot of cache bouncing traffic. That is the reason
why I want to replace ticket spinlock with queue spinlock. If the
16-byte size is an issue, I can use the same trick in the queue spinlock
patch to reduce its size down to 8 bytes with a bit more overhead in the
slowpath.

Another thing I want to discuss about is whether a bit more overhead in
moderate contention cases is really such a bit deal. With moderate
contention, I suppose the amount of time spent in the locking functions
will be just a few percent at most for real workloads. It won't really
be noticeable if the locking functions take, maybe, 50% more time to
finish. Anyway, I am going to do more performance testing on low end
machines.

-Longman


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-31 20:41    [W:0.917 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site